Peer Review Process
The review is performed by two specialists who are members of the Scientific Board, independently and confidentially. Thus, the name of the author/authors is not known to the reviewers and the reviewers do not know one another. The materials received for review are not made public and shall not be used for other purposes.
4 classification levels will be used:
A. acceptance – the article is accepted in the presented format.
B. acceptance with review – the article is accepted if the author(s) review(s) the article and includes the reviewers’ suggestions and observations.
C. acceptance with reserves – the article is accepted if the author(s) rewrite(s) the article on the basis of the reviewers’ suggestions and observations.
D. rejection – the article cannot be accepted in the presented format.
An article is rejected if one of the reviewers evaluates it with a grade of D or lower. If an article has dissenting evaluations, a third opinion may be requested or the decision rests with the chief editor.
The aspects targeted during the evaluation process are:
The reviewers look at the extent to which the article captures important and current aspects within the journal’s objectives and the theoretical, methodological, practical or informative novelty aspects it presents.
The reviewers examine every part of the article individually and also look for the manner in which the article is structured, taking into account their logic and succession. The article is also verified in order to be presented according to the requirements and if all elements required are present:
‐ author(s) and their affiliation
‐ summary – all components
‐ JEL classification
‐ type of article
and if the recommended dimension is observed.
The reviewers look at aspects related to the substance of research, opinions and problems approached. The title must clearly express what the article aims to present. The summary is eloquent for the article, presenting in the essence of the elements of maximum importance to the paper. The key words, the JEL classification and the type of article are properly selected.
The article should have an introduction which presents the elements that were the basis for achieving the paper/research, the context and the need and importance of the scientific approach. The content of the article should include: the research methodology, national and international opinions and the methods and techniques used in documenting or preparing the data presented. The presentation of the hypothesis, techniques, methods and models, as well as the results, need to be appropriate for the topic approached. The interpretation of the results and the solutions proposed should meet the socio‐economic needs identified earlier, which
generated the respective approach. The conclusions synthetically present the final result of the scientific approach, its manner of use, its dissemination and where necessary, new research directions. The bibliography must be representative and include approx. 20 references supporting the reference base of the article in the process of documentation and methodological reporting.
4. Linguistic aspects
A noted aspect is a fluid, clear expression, which allows for easy reading. Repetitive elements and expression structures will be considered. The possible errors of grammar or spelling will be highlighted. If systematic errors of expression or of grammar are seen, the editor is notified in order to decide accordingly. Full liability for the linguistic content rests with the author(s) or text editor(s) when corrections to the text are made.
The ethics elements considered are: plagiarism, fraud, copyright, use of confidential information, presentation of fabricated results etc. If any characteristics regarding the ethical aspects are noticed the editor will be notified in order to take the necessary measures. Evaluation report The reviewer has the obligation to fill out the report form and to place the article in one of the 4 levels of classification presented above. For the facile creation of a global overview regarding the article, the reviewer will fill out the attached form.
Within the final box a synthetic opinion of minimum 10 lines is desired to be expressed, which especially indicates the suggestions, observations, recommendations made to the author(s). The Results of the review process are normally available within 2‐3 weeks of submission.